The independent pro campaign winds down

As some of you may have spotted on twitter, the YestoHS2 account has ceased tweeting and I have now reverted to tweeting as myself as @CHowe4HS2. Those who have followed the campaign will know who I am so I have nothing to fear or hide from using my own name when tweeting about HS2. 


The campaign itself however has been slowly wound down this month and at the end of the Month the blog and facebook page will no longer be updated. 


I have taken this decision as I do not feel I can commit as much time as a campaign such as this requires, tweeting, bloging, letter writing and keeping in touch with fellow supporters may not cost much in cash terms but it has been taking up a lot of my time, perhaps too much time.... 


I'd love to have the time to spend rebutting the garbage spouted by wealthy, semi retired, self interested, individuals who are opposed to HS2, or the full time state sponsored activists who seem to have made a career out of spouting rubbish. However I have to work long hours to maintain my humble existence, so it is with regret that I feel I should be spending more time working day and nigh and less time campaigning. 


I will still share my views on HS2 in my spare time on twitter and will do my bit to ensure that the misleading, disingenuous tweets of those opposed are rebutted, however I can no longer maintain free of charge the independent YestoHS2 campaign as a going concern. 


Thanks to those who have shown your support over past 18 months. I hope that the fight will continue and that sense will prevail. 


YestoHS2!


Chris Howe,  campaign manager 


As the founder and prior manager of the independent YestoHS2 campaign I still retain full rights to use all associated branding material, the YestoHS2 green colour scheme, logo, banners and web content created specifically by YestoHS2 remain the intellectual property rights of Chris Howe who still retains the web address and blog address for the independent YestoHS2 campaign.


As yet no individual or groups have expressed and interest in taking control of the day to day running of the campaign, so anyone pertaining to be associated with or communicating for "YestoHS2" is doing so without prior permission. 

Antis have lost all objectivity when it comes to HS2 figures

Any interesting article from over a year ago was posted on twitter today, along with additional tweets such as HS2 "will cost £400 per seat in energy alone" and that "HS2 will require a massive power station building program costing more that the line itself." In fact the article in question which was used by antis states incredibly that "HS2's 61 train fleet would have, apparently, a potential demand of nearly 500GW. Since the National Grid's present total capacity is only 89GW" So 61 trains will use 5x the current total output of the national grid. 

Any person thinking objectively would have questioned these improbable figures and anyone wishing to discus HS2 based on facts would have refrained from making any rash judgments or claims, however the article which has been on the net for a year has been re-tweeted by those fervently opposed to HS2 as some sort of evidence that HS2 will use astronomical amounts of energy..

However this article should not have been taken literally and appears simply to be pointing out the interesting conclusion that could be drawn from using I Mech E figures for energy usage which themselves appear to be nothing more than a typo. The figures seem show the kwh/ per seat-km in whole numbers rather decimal.

Despite this, HS2 protesters upon unearthing  this year old letter jumped straight onto it and immediately began to make misleading and inaccurate statements based on these figures. 

The whole basis for this comes from the projected energy demand per seat/km, which for the HS2 reference train was projected to be around 0.05 kwh/seat-km (1), to put this into context current 9 car class 390 Pendolinos use .04 kwh/seat-km (2) and current Eurostar trains which provide services between London and Paris use 0.05 kmh/seat-km (1&2). These figures are based on independent work carried out on behalf of HS2 Ltd by Imperial College and other work carried out by the Cambridge energy Forum. 

The claims on twitter however used calculations based on whole numbers, so instead using the figure 0.05 kwh/per seat-km the claims in question used the whole number value of 50 kwh/seat-km. Every energy study which uses this unit of measure that I have found has been in the 0.03 to 0.06 range, whereas the figures for the claims are over 1000 times greater. 

This little fact hasn't stopped those opposed to HS2 using these figures on twitter to manufacture audacious and inaccurate claims though. If those opposed to HS2 really want to be taken seriously then they really ought to double check the facts and figures before making any claims regarding HS2. 

The current HS1 Eurostar which use the same energy travelling at 300km/h as HS2 trains will when travelling at 360km/h

(1) page 16 http://www.hs2.org.uk/assets/x/56774

(2) page 7 http://www.cambridgeenergy.com/archive/2007-02-08/cef08feb2007kemp.pdf

HS2 Rolling stock costs overlooked? Not likely!

Guest post by William Barter (Rail Operations and Planning Consult)

Someone seems to have suggested that the capital costs of rolling stock have been left out of the financial appraisal of HS2. Well if true, that would be a bit of an oversight, wouldn’t it? Nice new railway, no trains to run on it. Incredible! But of course like most things that are incredible, it isn’t true, as anyone who actually reads the published documents can see for themselves.

Look at the document “Economic Case for HS2: Updated appraisal of transport user benefits and wider economic benefits”, published in January 2012. Paragraph 4.1.3 kindly explains that there are two sources of capital costs – construction of the line and procurement of the rolling stock. Having identified that so clearly, they are hardly going to forget about one of them, are they? And indeed they haven’t, as Table 6 on page 33 details the capital costs for construction (£32.67 billion for the Y network), and Table 7 on page 35 sets out the rolling stock capital costs (£6.26 billion, plus a further risk provision of £1.89 billion).

OK so far? Rolling stock capital costs have not been forgotten, have they? So let’s take it a step further and see what they have then done with them.

Table 9 on page 37 brings all the costs and benefits together into the economic appraisal, including the capital costs – item 7, £36.4 billion. Not left out there, then, either. But if anyone wants to be really clever, they could add up £32.67 billion, £6.26 billion, and £1.89 billion, and find it comes to £40.82 billion, a bit more than item 7 of Table 9. Are the DfT trying to lose a cool £4.4 billion and hoping no-one will notice?

Once again, of course not. Check the headings to the tables, and you will see that Tables 6 and 7 are at Quarter 2 2011 prices – in other words the total costs if paid out all in one year right now, 15 years before even Phase 1 of the line opens. But Table 9 does precisely what it should, which is to work out the Present Value of the project, based on the year by year spending over the whole life. And when you do that, future cash flows are discounted (that is, reduced by a small percentage for every year ahead that we look) because money in the future is not worth so much as money now. If I owe you £100, when would you rather I paid you? This year or next year? And if you owe me the £100? Thought so. And no, this isn’t a fiddle to give costs less emphasis than benefits, because future benefits are also discounted for every passing year – discounting actually makes it harder to justify capital expenditure.

But just sticking to these capital costs, not only will they not be incurred in one year but over a construction period between 5 and 15 years into the future for Phase 1 alone, but the rolling stock in particular will fall well towards the end of that period and indeed stretch to the completion of Phase 2. So the costs for both construction and rolling stock are both spread over a number of future years, and so have been subject to discounting (but not nearly as much discounting as the benefits, because these are being incurred much further into the future).

And that discounting is what makes £40.82 billion in 2011 the equivalent of £36.3 billion in the economic appraisal. That won’t of course be what is paid, as that depends on inflation over the next 5 to 20 years, but the point about inflation is that it affects costs and benefits equally, so doesn’t change the ratio between them, which is what the economic appraisal sets out to assess.

So why would anyone try to make out that such a crucial item as rolling stock has just been forgotten? I suppose “why” is obvious! “How” is by not doing their homework properly, plucking a daft statement out of thin air and hoping it will be swallowed by people who are too busy to read things up for themselves. Incredible? Sadly not.

Liverpool will suffer if opponents get their way

It would seem that the Anti-HS2 campaign group StopHS2 is determined to drag Liverpool into the HS2 debate and use the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester as a way of leverage support from Liverpool for there single minded anti-HS2 campaign. Individuals from Liverpool are already poised to get into bed with StopHS2 as they feel Liverpool will lose out to Manchester due to the journey time difference once the line is extended, this was compounded by a anti-HS2 funded report that was sent to the Liverpool DP proclaiming that the Dft has cut Liverpool's connection further North. A claim which was successfully rebutted here.


StopHS2 are now playing on the fears of Liverpudlians and are happily tweeting about the demise of Liverpool should the line be extended further North. I'm not angered by the fact that StopHS2 are using this despicable tactic, it's to be expected when there so much personal self interest riding on this. What does annoy me though is that those opposing HS2 have the gall to say that they care about the North and Liverpool. 


The public could be forgiven for believing that those behind StopHS2 really do care about tax payers and do actually care about Liverpool's plight, they do after all make a good emotive case and know all of the manipulation tricks in the book. So it may come as a surprise to those who have been sucked in by the opposition to find out that far from caring about Liverpool, the implications of the so called "alternative" favoured by anti-HS2 campaigners would have a dire consequences for Liverpool 


Let looks at the argument used by StopHS2, they claim that Liverpool will lose out economically if the journey time to Liverpool is longer than that to Manchester. This despite StopHS2 insistence that journey time savings do not benefit regional economies, this has been at heart of their argument against HS2 from the start. 


If we forget this argument for the moment and look at capacity, opponents claim that Liverpool will see a reduction in seating capacity due to HS2, despite a doubling of rail services from the city to London after the introduction of HS2 services in 2026. 


So HS2 is bad for Liverpool is it? Depends if you believe Liverpool will need additional capacity in the future or not? Those opposed to HS2 certainly don't seem to think it will, not according to the so called "alternative" that they have been working on for almost 2 years.


Lets take a look at the following "alternative" WCML services diagram.

If you look closely at the diagram which is designed to "future proof" the WCML, you can see it provides Liverpool with exactly the same number of services that the city already receives today, perhaps then opponents plan to provide longer trains? But no, as a kick in the teeth for Liverpool the architects of this master plan (51M) say the 12 car Pendolinos that have been proposed to increase capacity will not operate out of Liverpool Lime Street.  51M have conceded that lengthening the platforms at Lime Street to allow 12 car Pendolinos to operate would be too costly. So Liverpool will be left with the 11 car Pendolinos that it will be getting later this year anyway. The shock outcome of the above diagram is that Liverpool will be left with 11 car Pendolinos from Dec 12 until eternity, with no prospect of additional services to London in the future as the vast majority of North West capacity is given the Manchester. 


So to clarify, StopHS2 is claiming Liverpool will lose out to Manchester if HS2 goes ahead, whilst at the same time promoting an alternative that gives extra capacity for Manchester in the form of greater numbers trains which will be longer than those serving Liverpool, with the outcome being that Liverpool will see no net capacity gain beyond Dec 2012, with no journey time savings what so ever.


For those Liverpudlians tempted join the StopHS2 campaign I would seriously consider the alternative that they propose first. For more information regarding how this "alternative" will have devastating consequences for other towns and cities click here.

What's this I hear about Euston station?

StopHS2 announced on twitter today  "Euston ‘won’t cope with high-speed link’ " with a link to a blog post containing comments made by Daniel Moylan, the deputy chairman of Transport for London.


the very fist line of the blog states the following


"Congestion on the London Underground following the opening of the proposed high-speed rail link between the capital and Birmingham will be so bad that key stations will have to close every morning to prevent a crush, transport chiefs have warned.". 


So we can assume from this, that there are concerns about capacity at Euston following the opening of the first phase from London to Birmingham in 2026. So we must therefore assume that StopHS2 by trying to use this as a basis for a story against HS2, that StopHS2 now agrees that the passenger forecasts between London and Birmingham are probably correct. 

Having read through the "story" in full, it would appear that StopHS2 have found themselves in a tricky situation, as the story flags up some contraindications within their own views.

StopHS2's commentary on this supposed story highlights several key contradictions within their key arguments. 

Either:

A) Euston will be busy after the completion of the link "between the capital and Birmingham" in which case the government projections are correct or possibly even conservative.

B) That Euston underground will not be any busier and both figures by the anti-HS2 group 51M and HS2 Ltd are incorrect and there will minimal growth on the WCML, in which case Daniel Moylan is making a fuss over nothing. 

C) London Euston will be busy anyway with or without HS2 and StopHS2 are simply using Daniel Moylan's comments as weapon against HS2, despite the fact that Mr Moylan's stated the following “The need for this is not driven solely by HS2 but by a combination of HS2 and general growth in demand over the period to 2043,” 

StopHS2's scatter gun approach to it's arguments is slowly opening up some deep flaws within their case against HS2, you can't have a station being busy due to growth in demand and then completely disagree that demand will continue grow at all. Indeed the main argument used by StopHS2 is not just that demand has been overestimated, but crucially that many people will stop travelling altogether due the advent of this newfangled technology that hasn't been around for the past 10 years. 

I'm afraid StopHS2 can't have it's cake and eat it. Even groups coming under the StopHS2 banner are so worried about the growth in demand on the WCML that they have spent the past year desperately trying to come up with a WCML alternative to HS2 and then trying desperately to prove that it will "triple" capacity. 51M are right to be worried about growth given the 10% per annum growth in demand seen recently,  however their proposition for meeting demand has now been shown by on-other than Network Rail not to increase capacity sufficiently.

So what is it to be, are 51M, HS2 Ltd and Daniel Moylan wrong, will demand on the WCML stop growing? Or will Euston be busy in the future? If Euston will be busy in the future then Londoners will see reap benefits as the business case for Crossrail 2 via Euston will be greatly improved. There is no doubt in many people's minds that Crossrail 2 will be built in the future with or without  the completion of HS2, however HS2 greatly improves the economic case for the line which in-turn will help to provide a better return for the taxpayer. 

One crucial point to end with, is that 51M's so called "alternative" will not connect to Crossrail at any point, therefore their envisaged "tripling" in west coast demand will be funnelled in to Euston alone. Where as HS2 with the inclusion of a stop at Old Oak Common will be tied directly into Crossrail with the added possibility of additional connections for which plans are currently being put together by Tfl and Hammersmith and Fulham council. The connection will mean passengers wishing to travel into key central London destinations and business zones will be able to alight at Old Oak for Crossrail services instead of alighting at Euston and using the tube. 

Plans put forward by HS2 Ltd for Euston station show a lighter brighter station which makes best use of the land occupied, allowing for more homes and more offices to be built on the site which is currently occupied by the old outdated concrete box. 

Anti HS2 Lies know no bounds

Yesterday a anonymous anti HS2 twitter user calling him/her self HS2numptyhunter made the following statement "@YesToHS2 Wise up numpties! Chris Howe has vested interests with the concrete industry & Britpave (lobbying HS2 Ltd for work). #hs2"


I would like to state that I DO NOT work or am ever likely  to work within the concrete industry. Nor am I likely to benefit from any HS2 contracts now or in the future. 


Usually I would use words such as "disingenuous or misleading" however on this occasion calling this anything other than a lie would only serve to downplay the seriousness of this allegation, which to my mind is bordering on deformation of character.  


This comment was re-tweeted by serveral anti HS2 users on twitter who by re-tweeting the claim can also stand accused making false claims without basis or evidence, i.e. lying. 


I shouldn't have to waste my time making statements such as this, I would much prefer to spend my time promoting the benefits of HS2, or on a Sunday it would be nice to take a break, but with claims from those opposed to HS2 getting more misleading and desperate by the day it seems that supporters of HS2 must now be on the look out for unsubstantiated personal attacks. This latest slur simply highlights the lengths that those against HS2 will go to in order to knock HS2 and individuals who support the proposals. 




Chris Howe, YestoHS2 

Liverpool will not be used as a weapon in the fight against HS2

Update


Liverpool will suffer if opponents get their way

Update


Latest statement from HS2 Ltd 


"Further to our conversation yesterday, I can confirm that no decisions have yet been made about HS2’s route to Liverpool.  We are still considering all options about how best to serve Liverpool in the second phase of the project, and we expect to send our initial route options to the Secretary of State in the spring.  

The indicative service specification published last month was modelled with Liverpool services leaving the high speed rail network at Lichfield - meaning that the services would be able to stop at Stafford, Runcorn and Crewe – however, it would be wrong to assume this will necessarily be the final route."

Today the Liverpool Daily Post released a apparently damming article which proclaimed “Liverpool high speed rail link plans quietly dropped to save money”, the article seems to suggest that the Dft have said that from 2033 the HS2 trains that will serve Liverpool will continue to connect onto the new line at a Junction to be built close to Lichfield as part of phase 1 of HS2, instead of a link further North to be built during the construction of the second phase. With the implication being that Liverpool will lose out massively to Manchester due to the difference in journey times.

Closer inspection of the article reveals that the Dft has made no such statement and in fact had not even been contacted to make a statement regarding this claim. On contacting HS2 Ltd and the Dft this morning they were surprised by the story and its contents, HS2 Ltd stated emphatically that they are still drawing up the plans for the full Y network and have made no decisions as to where Liverpool services will connect, adding there is still every possibility that Liverpool will have a connection further North and nothing has been ruled out at this stage.

Further investigation of this story found that the source was someone with close ties to the anti HS2 protest group StopHS2. So it would seem that the document on which this article was based was written for the specific purpose of undermining support for HS2 from Liverpool.

What’s disappointing is that the Daily Post took a document from an analyst with ties to anti HS2 groups, ran the story with a sensationalist title and then made it seem as if this was fact which had been hidden by the Dft. To add to this the Daily Post made no effort to contact the Dft, HS2 Ltd or any pro HS2 groups.

Despite suggestions that Liverpool will lose out to Manchester, Liverpool Chamber of Commerce still fully supports the proposals and is not entirely convinced by the information contained within the article.

It seems a shame that whilst pro groups such as yestoHS2 have to use words such “could, should, proposed, planned etc” so as not to be accused of lying or misleading, it would seem that anti HS2 groups can release any garbage they want and have news papers run their stories without even bothering to check the facts first.

What’s even more frustrating is that a positive letter sent to the Daily Post from YestoHS2 the night before will more than likely be binned, the letter made the point that Liverpool amongst other North West cities will benefit from HS2 as soon as 2026 with the very connection at Lichield which forms the basis of negative story published today.

For those interested in the truth, the evidence for which this story was based is a proposed service diagram contained within updated Dft documentation. If you were already biased against HS2 and wish to make a point it would be easy to use this service diagram to prove that Liverpool will lose out. However as a spokesman from the Dft said any service diagrams proposed at this stage will be for modeling purposes only i.e. they are simplified service patterns used to model demand and not fixed proposals for actual services post 2026. To take the service diagram in question and turn it into a sensationalist document implying that Liverpool will lose out is disingenuous at best, at worst is nothing more than a piece of propaganda material designed to recruit businesses and residents from Liverpool to the StopHS2 crusade, which has been up to now mostly confined to the southern shires.